Army. I feel sure that hon. Members on either side will not for a moment suspect the Government of any intentional disrespect towards the House when I say that, whatever the merits of the case may be, one way or the other, considering the importance of this question and the extent to which it affects military discipline, the Government cannot regard a majority of 1 in a House of 215 Members as a deliberate expression of the opinion of the House of Commons. Sir, it is therefore our intention to insert the usual clause in the Mutiny Bill, giving the power of punishing by flogging in the army in certain cases. I wish to give this notice in all fairness to hon. Gentlemen opposite; and I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), and the other hon. Members who supported his Motion on this subject, to move to expunge that clause from the Mutiny Bill if they think fit. CAPTAIN VIVIAN said, he would beg to ask when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go into Committee on the Mutiny Bill? The House, he thought, ought to receive due notice of that. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am not able at this moment to name the day, but due notice of it shall be given. MR. OTWAY wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the clause he proposed to insert in the Mutiny Bill, authorizing the infliction of corporal punishment, was the usual clause in that Act, or-as he thought he gathered from his remarks-a clause restricting that punishment in some further sense than had hitherto been the case? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The course I intend to follow, and which I thought I had clearly announced to the House, is to insert in the Mutiny Bill the same clause on this subject which it has been usual to insert in it. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION-CATHE- in the course of the autumn an tion was received from several non lar members of cathedral and co churches on the subject to wh hon. Member referred. When the siastical Commissioners re-assemb the meeting of Parliament in Fe a Select Committee was appointed sider the matter, and certain queri prepared, which were now in prog being answered. IRELAND-WATERFORD ELECT MR. COGAN said, he wished Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, W in consequence of the instruction by him on the 16th of February Crown Solicitor, in which he advi a communication should be made Colonel of the regiment to have the who were at Dungarvan, on the when the two men O'Brien and K their lives, paraded for the pur identification; whether any such has been made by the Crown Solici what has been the reply of the Co the regiment? He also wished whether he has any objection to la the table of the House the Report for the Government by the sh writer employed for that purpose, proceedings at the inquests held garvan on the bodies of William and Bartholomew Keily? THE SOLICITOR GENERA IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON) said absence of his right hon. and Friend, he had to state that the term minute of the Attorney General in r to the subject of the hon. Membe Question were to the effect that if an worthy person came forward or c found who could identify the soldi caused the death of these men, a com tion should be laid before the comm officer of the regiment. No such had come forward, or could be foun MR. BENTINCK said, he rose to ask was also in a position to state tha Her Majesty's Government, Whether the such evidence could be procured th Ecclesiastical Commissioners have taken manding officer of the regiment any and what proceedings for considering afford every facility for the identific the claims of the non-capitular Members the men. With regard to the hon of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches ber's second Question, he had to s which have been presented under the pro- the Peports taken for the Gove visions of the Ecclesiastical Commission by the shorthand writer were QUESTION. not be convenient to lay them on the table of the House. MR. COGAN said, he would give notice that on an early day he would move for the production of those Reports. CASE OF MR. CHURCHWARD. OBSERVATIONS. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE Baid, he would postpone till a later day the Question of which he had given notice respecting the appointment of Mr. Churchward as a Magistrate at Dover. MAJOR DICKSON said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor), whether he would be willing to postpone the Motion standing in his name for this day until next Friday, as neither the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India nor the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who were intimately acquainted with all the facts connected with the renewal of the Dover contract, would be in their places until that day? He thought, in common justice to Mr. Churchward, the hon. Member should comply with that request. MR. TAYLOR said, he could not comprehend the grounds on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked him to postpone a Motion affecting the conduct of the Government. Was he to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke on that matter in behalf of the Government ? ["Order! "] NAVY-STAFF COMMANDERS AND MASTERS.-QUESTION. relative to the Representation of the People.-(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I rise to ask leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Laws for regulating the Representation of the People in Parliament. Sir, the principles of political representation, and especially as applied to the circumstances of this country, have of late years been so profoundly and so extensively discussed and investigated, that it is scarcely necessary on this occasion that I should advert to them. I propose, therefore, to confine my observations to two points. I will endeavour, in the first place, clearly to convey to the House the object of the Government in the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce; and secondly, I will detail the means by which that purpose, in their opinion, can be accomplished. It will be for the House, first, to decide whether that object is de- ! sirable; and secondly, if desirable, whether the means which we propose are adequate; and, in the first place, I would say that our object is not only to maintain, but to strengthen, the character and functions of this House. They are peculiar in any popular assembly; not only rare, but perhaps unexampled in any other which has existed. The House of Commons has combined national representation with the attributes of a Senate. That peculiar union In reply to a Question from Sir LAW-has, in our opinion, been owing to the RENCE PALK, LORD HENRY LENNOX said, that the Admiralty had decided upon continuing the rank of Masters in the Navy, and with that view had commenced the re-entry of cadets of the second-class. The St. George had been apportioned for their training. The Admiralty had also had under their consideration a scheme for redressing some of the grievances complained of by the Staff Commanders and Masters of the Navy, and that scheme was nearly complete when the late changes were made; but he hoped it would not be long before they would be able to complete it. ORDERS OF THE DAY. Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion Its variety of character has given to it its variety of elements of which it is formed. deliberative power, and it owes to its deliberative power its general authority. We wish, I repeat, not only to maintain, but to strengthen that character and those functions; and we believe that, in the present age and under the existing circumstances of the country, the best way to do so is to establish them on a broad popular basis. I know that there are some persons in whose minds the epithet which I have just used may create a feeling of distrust; but I attribute the sentiment of alarm which is associated with it to a misapprehension of its meaning, and to that perplexity of ideas which too often confounds popular privileges with democratic rights. They are not identical: they are not similar. More than that, they are contrary. Popular privileges are consistent with a state of society in which there is great inequality of condition. Democratic rights, on the contrary, demand that there should be equality of condition as the fundamental basis of the society which they regulate. Now, that is, I think, a distinction which ought to be borne in mind by the House in dealing with the provisions of the Bill which I am about to ask leave to introduce. If this Bill be a proposal that Her Majesty shall be enabled to concede to her subjects, with the advice and concurrence of her Parliament, a liberal measure of popular privileges, then there may be many of its provisions which will be regarded as prudent, wise, and essentially constitutional. If, on the other hand, it be looked upon as a measure having for its object to confer democratic rights, then I admit much that may contain may be viewed in the light of being indefensible and unjust. We do not, however, live-and I trust it will never be the fate of this country to liveunder a democracy. The propositions which I am going to make to-night certainly have no tendency in that direction Generally speaking, I would say that, looking to what has occurred since the Reform Act of 1832 was passed-to the increase of population, the progress of industry, the spread of knowledge, and our ingenuity in the arts-we are of opinion that numbers, thoughts, and feelings have since that time been created which it is desirable should be admitted within the circle of the Constitution. We wish that admission to take place in the spirit of our existing institutions, and with a due deference to the traditions of an ancient State. it In dealing with the question of the distribution of power in such a State-which is really the question before us-I would, in the first place, call the attention of the House to that part of it which is perhaps the most important, and which certainly to the greatest extent commands the interest of the public. I allude to the franchise, and especially that which should prevail in towns. I would ask the House at the outset to consider the principles upon which the occupation franchise in boroughs ought to rest, and upon which it is expedient to base it. In 1832 the borough franchise was founded on the principle of value. Those who paid £10 for the house in which they lived, subject to certain regulations as regards rates and residence, had the borough franchise con ferred upon them. I believe that franchise may be fairly considered as having been an efficient and satisfactory franchise, and as having in its generation operated with advantage to the country. My own opinion from the commencement has always been that seed was sown in that arrangement which would necessarily in the course of time lead to some disturbance. That is, however, a question of controversy, and I will not indulge in controversy at the present moment. It is, nevertheless, a his. toric fact that only twenty years after the passing of the great measure of 1832 the principal, or, at least, one of the principal authors of that measure announced in this House that the arrangement which had been entered into, especially with respect to the borough franchise, was no longer satisfactory, and invited us to consider a new arrangement which might command a more complete assent. That is a fact which cannot be denied. The proposition which was made at the period to which I refer in order to allay discontent and meet the requirements of the time by the statesman who, upon the whole, had taken nearly the most prominent part in the passing of the Act of 1832 involved a diminution of the value on which the borough franchise was established. That proposition was received with no satisfaction, and from that period up to the present-and fifteen years have, I think, since elapsed-the question has more or less engaged public attention, and has been taken up by public men who have brought forward various schemes with a view to the solution of the difficulties by which it is surrounded. All these schemes have in their turn proved to be unsatisfactory, and all have been unsuccessful; but every one of them has been distinguished by this characteristic, that the only remedy proposed was a diminution in some form or another, or in some degree or another, of the value on which the borough franchise was based in 1832. The House will easily recall to its recollection the combination of figures which have been submitted to the notice of Parliament on this subject. We had before us £8 and £7 rating or rental; £6 in every form, and we now hear of other figures. No proposition, however, which has as yet been put forward has given satisfaction, because the country, and the House reflecting the feeling of the country, has felt that by none of the changes suggested was a settlement of the question likely to be insured. Last year a Bill was introduced with | division which numbered above 600 Mem the same object as that which I have risen bers, had narrowly investigated and purto ask for leave to bring in to-night-sued, to the last consequences, all that namely, to amend the Laws for the Repre- must follow from the assertion and adopsentation of the People in Parliament. tion of that principle; but it happened, That Bill was avowedly not founded on a as happens in all popular assemblies, that principle; it was avowedly founded, as far a great decision was arrived at by the unas I can understand, on expediency. The erring instinct of the House. The House right hon. Gentleman who was its powerful felt that for the last fifteen years this advocate in this House seemed to me question of the borough franchise had not always distinctly to have laid it down, in been treated in a satisfactory manner by the course of his argument on the subject, any Government which had attempted to that it was necessary there should be an deal with it, and that the time had come admission of the working classes into the when some principle should be laid down constituencies; that in accordance with a in a distinct and decided manner for the figure which he had fixed upon he calcu- guidance of those who might have to offer lated that a certain portion of them would propositions to the House on the subject. be admitted; but that if another figure I take it for granted that if ever there was were adopted which he named he thought a decision of the House of Commons which the number admitted would be excessive, meant something it was that decision which and he therefore recommended the first determined the fate of the Ministry; and figure as that which, upon the whole, if anything ever had the character of auwould, he thought, furnish the best and thority in this House at all, it was the safest solution of the difficulty. His pro- vote arrived at on that occasion. The posal, therefore, involved no principle. It House, I assume, meant by the decision it might have been an appropriate arrange- arrived at that the person who was to be ment, but it was essentially an expedient. intrusted with a vote to elect Members of The House knows what took place during Parliament should be one with respect to the long discussions in which we were en- whom there should be some guarantee and gaged last year. [Ironical cheers from the security for the regularity of his life and Opposition.] I infer from that cheer that the general trustworthiness of his conduct; the House is prepared to recognise the and the House thought that the fact of a truth of the statement that it was gene- man being rated to the relief of the poor rally felt that the proposal of the late and being able to pay his rates gave that Government afforded no prospect of a satis- fair assurance which the State had a right factory settlement of this question. A to require. I take it that vote of the very considerable amount of time was last House of Commons meant this:-If you Session employed in a very unsatisfactory are going to invest men with the exercise manner, until at length the House took of public rights, let that great trust be the matter into its own hands, and, in one accompanied with the exercise of public of the largest divisions which ever took duty. I take it for granted that was what place within these walls, asserted a prin- the House of Commons meant. It meant ciple with regard to the borough franchise that the being rated to the poor and the which was carried by a majority. That paying of the rates constituted a fair asprinciple was that the borough franchise surance that the man who fulfilled those should be founded on rating. The House conditions was one likely to be characterwill admit that the statement I have ized by regularity of life and general trustmade is fair and accurate. No one ques-worthiness of conduct. That is a principle tions for a moment that the Govern- which the House thought ought not to ment fully realized the importance of be lost sight of, but should be a sine that decision. Of course, if they had quâ non in the settlement of the borough not acknowledged its importance, they franchise. would not have retired from a position of power; but they felt that the decision at which the House of Commons had arrived was one opposed to the whole policy which they had pursued during the Session. I do not say that every Gentleman on both sides of the House who contributed to that division-I do not say that everyone in a In having to consider this question, we accepted as a guide that decision of the House of Commons, placing on it what we deemed to be its real interpretation. We believe that the House has resolved and wishes that the borough suffrage should be bound up and united with the duty of paying rates for the maintenance ope those 486,000 on account of persons who might claim to pay the rates; but a great amount of those 486,000 persons would still remain without the opportunity of being rated to the poor, because there are certain Acts of Parliament, some of a general and some of a local character, by which the landlord compounds for the rates of his tenants, who, in consequence, are called compound-householders, and most of these are under the operation of the Act with the details of which every Gentleman in the House is familiar-the Small Tenements Act. There are fifty-eight boroughs which are entirely under the ration of that Act, and there are ninety-eight boroughs in which certain parishes only are under the operation of the Act. In considering the settlement of the franchise Therefore, for boroughs, and the possibility of attempting to establish it, not on the fluctuating principle of value, which is only a question of degree which may vary, and which we might be called on to change from year to year, it is impossible not to take into view the peculiar position of the compound-householders, And the question arises, ought a compound-householder to have a vote? Well, Sir, in our opinion, assuming that the House is of the same opinion, that the foundation of the franchise should be rating and a payment of rates, and that that is adopted by the House, not as a check, as some would say, but, on the contrary, as a qualification, and because it is the best evidence of the trustworthiness of the individual, we have no hesitation in saying ourselves that we do not think that the compound-householder, as a compound-householder, ought to have a vote. But, Sir, we are far from saying that any person who is a compoundhouseholder, from the effects of Acts which have been passed for the convenience of vestries, should be deprived of the opportunity of obtaining and enjoying this right which persons in the same sphere of life may have granted to them, and which, for aught we know, these compound-householders may be equally competent to possess and to exercise. And therefore, Sir, we should have to consider whether it would not be possible, in the case of compound-householders who are deprived of rating for the moment by Acts to which I have referred, either of a general or local character-whether it might not be possible to give them the opportunity of accepting the public duty, and in consequence the public right, which others in the same sphere of the poor, and paying them really- |